St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-04-28

convince him that he would venture to act
upon this conviction in matters OF the high
| est importance. IT the proof goes TO this
| extent it is the duty OF the jury 10 convict,
| but If il fails to come to TINS standard the
| jury shall aeouit In order to convict under
this indictment il must appear that Frank
Farnsworth was killed by the defendant with
out justification and with premeditated de-
| sign to effect his death IL is estanlished
That Farnsworrh came to his death by
| shot discharged from Al pistol in the
| hand of the defendant. The circumstances
! surrounding the occurrence are In dispute.
A premeditated design Is purpose formed
! with elaboration for the commission OF an
| act. There is no specific time necessary to
be measured during which the purpose must
| exist, but it must exist Tor Sufficient period
/ for the act to make 1t a deliberate purpose OF
| the mind What the intent actually is IN any
| case is to be determined from the circum-
4 stance, In this case, it is claimed by the
state. defendant had applied opproprious cpl
thets to the deceased; that he had declared
Intention to shoot, and that he brought on
the quarrel without excuse or lustincatioIi.
The defendant claims that there was no ILL
1eellng on his part toward Farnsworlh, ana
that Farnsworth was the aggressor. The pis-
| tOl was drawn and used in self-defense,
! but that its discharge was an acct
dent. You are to consider the act done,
| the circumstances surrounding it, the fact
| that defendant was armed with loaded
|
guage to deceased, whether he declared an
intention to shoot, whether the shot was fired
with premeditated design to erect the death
Of Farnsworth. Ii not so fired defendant cam
not be convicted of the crime Tor Whlch ne Is
charged in the Indictment. But it does not
! follow If premeditated design is not shown
| that defendant shall be acquitted.
The court Their describes the various grades
of crime and the punishments therefore.
| The killing of human being is justitiable if
| hn
grounds to apprehend design on the part OF
| the person slain to commit a felony. The law
permits man to defend himself in proper
manner, even if the defense results in the
| killing of the assailant. Ii the defendant
killed Farnsworth in self-defense he is not
guilty of any crime. l do not mean that
every killing of an assailant by the person
assailed is justitiable. One has no
| right to kill another to prevent
| mere trespass, unaccompaned py
| imminent danger OF great bodily harm when
| does not produce reasonable apprehension OF
such danger. To be iustifable. killing in
| self-defense must be under circumstances
giving reasonable ground to apprehend that
| the person slain intends to do the slayer serl-
| Gus bodily injury, and there is great danger
| of such purpose being accomplished. There
must be the acrual belief that the injury
threatened is serious. Killing is only to be
| resorted to in great extremities and where
| there is no other practical means to avoid
/ threatened harm. 1t is the duty OF the
| assailed to retreat and avoid conflict. The
| danger must be actual, but the circumstances
must be such as to reasonably warrant seri-
GUS apprehension. The splitting by Farms
! worth was Lot alone sufficient to Justify the
| shooting, noT,was the application to defendant
| of epithets by the deceased sufficient Ii
justifable Or eXcusable you must not con-
Wet. Something has been said about the
| mental condition Of the defendant at the
| time of the tragedy. Insanity must be estab-
| lished by a fair preponderance of evidence.
| If defendant fired the shot while laboring
| under defective reason, he is not guilty.
Mere ill health, insomnia or nervousness do
not render the defendant irresponsible. The
| previous good character of the defendant
| should weigh in you Yerdict.N You are judges
of all tine questions of fact and of the creda-
| bility of all the witnesses. You are to de-
| The eoquence of counsel, sympathy nor pre-
| JUDGE shall not govern you. You must de-
| eide the question of innocence or guilt upon
| evidence in the case and upon that alone.
>. THE VERDICT.
At sos O'clock the jury filed through the
door opening into the jury room, and the
great mass of people, still curious. were
hurried out of the court room by the sheriff.
At o'clock Judge Brill came into the court
| room, and as no verdict had. yet been re-
| turned. he adjourned court till 10 O'Clock
| this morning, and started for home. He
had hardly reached the street when loud
| pounding was heard at the door of the
| jury room, and it was announced that the
| jury had agreed. The sheriff and his depu-
| ties notified Judge Brill and the attorneys
in the case, and they were soon sitting in
| the seats that they had occupied for the
past eight days. Mrs. Mead, accompanied
| by her sister and lady friends and Frank
Mead, came in and sat down in their ac-
cuStomed places, and as the jury filed in
and took their seats, just one hour and
twelve minutes after going out, look OF
deep anxiety settled on the face of the
wife of the prisoner that plainly pictured
| the agony in her heart. But she was
brave and still hopeful, and bore up
herocally. Frank Mead. with teeth set.
sank into his chair, and folding his arms,
said to Bill Erwin. ''Im prepared for the
worst" No intimatiOn of what the verdict
was could be got. Many thought it would
be manslaughter. Clerk Armstrong was alb
sent and the judge would not proceed till
he arrived. As the minutes slipped by,
adding hours of weight to the anxiety that
oppressed the members of the prisoners
family, the silence was almost painful.
There was no conversation above whis-
per. The light was fading out of the room
scene. At $50 Clerk Armstrong came in
and taking his stand at his desk, the court
was called to order. From the hand of the
foreman of the jury the clerk took the slip
of paper that told the fate of the prisoner.
| Slowly he read to suffering ears the verdict
| mot guilty" AS if crushing weight had
| been lifted from their shoulders, the wife,
daughter, relatives and friends of the man
| who had been given back his freedom rose to
their feet. In an instant husband and wife
i were in each others arms and their lips met.
| Pressing around Mead his friends shook his
hands vigorously and offered congratula-
tons. He met them calmly and with the
air of man who had received nothing but
which he was justly entitled to. The court
adjourned. and with this ended one of the
hardest fought legal battles recorded in the
annals of Minnesota.
| TRIAL NOTES.
! Mr.. Mead went with his wife to the resi-
| dence of w, w. Irwin.
1t is understood that Attorney Severance
| in the office of Senator Davis, prepared the
details of the case for the defense in every
| particular.
| Bill Erwin quietly smiled when the verdict
| was announced He didn't get ratified a bit.
1t is understood that Senator Davis took the
case with no hope of compensation, and At
| torney Erwin cheerfully assisted him.
| AS team OF criminal lawyers, Davis and
Erwin are hard to beat.
! Judge Egan and Attorney General Clapp
| fought splendidly.
| No members of the Farnsworth family were
| present when the verdict was received.
| Among those who congratulated Mead were
! a number of old-time newspaper men.
PER>ONALS.
R. R. Briggs, of Moorhead, was in the city
yesterday.
! G. B. Edgerton, of Kasson. was in the city